Dr. Matthias Koch LL. M.
Attorney at the Federal Court of Justice

In case I ZR 17/24, I successfully argued on behalf of the defendant that the design of a Birkenstock sandal did not exhibit sufficient creative height within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the German Copyright Act. The Federal Court of Justice clarified that product designs whose features are predominantly functional cannot be recognised as works eligible for copyright protection. 

This creates legal certainty for companies that use or develop similar designs.

The Federal Court of Justice agreed with my argument: the fact that my client, a police officer, could be identified in the report about an operation violated his general personal rights. Neither a black bar over his eyes nor the public interest justified the portrayal. 

This ruling sets clear limits on the portrayal of individual officers in the media outside of contexts of systemic misconduct or historically significant events.

On behalf of the applicant, I successfully argued before the Federal Court of Justice, even though this was based on the Energy Charter Treaty. The Federal Court of Justice confirmed that German courts can determine inadmissibility in advance in accordance with Section 1032 (2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). 

This is in line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Achmea and Komstroy cases and creates a clear legal framework for investment disputes within the EU – an important step towards legal consistency in the area of investment protection in the EU.